The Huns..Scourge of God or Gift from God?

**Steppe Merc** · 07-03-2005, 18:07

Um, Huns weren't untrained. They were sharpenned by the steppe, and were far better warriors than Romans. They were also disciplened, as you have to be to execute complicated horse archery manuevers.
And 200,000 seems way to big, especially since they were based in Hungary, which has a smaller steppe than say Mongolia.

**caesar44** · 07-03-2005, 18:12

Originally Posted by Steppe Merc

Um, Huns weren't untrained. They were sharpenned by the steppe, and were far better warriors than Romans. They were also disciplened, as you have to be to execute complicated horse archery manuevers.
And 200,000 seems way to big, especially since they were based in Hungary, which has a smaller steppe than say Mongolia.

"were far better warriors than Romans..." , hei , we are talking about the romans who ruled the world some 600 years ? I let it that you referred to 450' ce romans ha ?

**Steppe Merc** · 07-03-2005, 18:17

I'm talking about Romans of all ages. Romans were trained. Steppe warriors were made. If they survived the steppe, they had to be excellent archers and riders. You can't train someone up to the level of superiority that comes from harsh enviornments.
Let me put it this way: the steppe style of warfare existed for over a millenium, and through out the ages beat armies of all different types. Roman style of warfare died out within a few hundred years.

**caesar44** · 07-03-2005, 18:30

Never understood the enthusiasm about the steppe warriors
The romans were smashing everything for centuries , and you are saying that they were not , even , a good warriors ? the latins army formations surpassed any "barbaric" army , the determination , the discipline , the strength etc'
ever heard about a "barbaric" empire that stood more then few years until the golden horde ?
Nations strength should not be measured by the physical ability of its warriors but by the overall abilities of them

**The Wizard** · 07-03-2005, 18:36

True, but speak not highly of the late Romans. They let Germanic and Turkic peoples do their dirty work. The Romans brought their own undoing upon themselves -- the Germanic peoples simply profited.

~Wiz

**caesar44** · 07-03-2005, 18:56

Originally Posted by The Wizard

True, but speak not highly of the late Romans. They let Germanic and Turkic peoples do their dirty work. The Romans brought their own undoing upon themselves -- the Germanic peoples simply profited.

~Wiz

Agreed

**KingOfTheIsles** · 07-03-2005, 18:54

You seem to be confusing political strength with military strength, Caesar. Certainly, Atilla's horde was held together under his personality, and so lacked the internal strength to avoid splintering on his death, with no enshrined law of succession, and little in the way of administration or national/racial unity, it stood no chance.

The strength of steppe nomads came from the fact that virtually every male was a warrior, trained in the use of a bow and of tending to his horse. It wasn't that the Romans were bad warriors (even in the Empire's death throes, they still won victories), but that often couldn't bring the more mobile Huns to battle, and they were able to ravage the countryside.

Funnily enough, the title of this thread reminded me of another piece of history where maybe the Huns were a gift from God, and the founder of ecclesiastical supremacy in the middle-ages. After his defeat at Châlons, Atilla ravaged Lombardy in 452 and settled on the Mincio. Supposedly, an embassy lead by Pope Leo awed him into submission, and he did not march on the rest of Italy. In reality, it is unlikely the pagan Hun would care for the church, and he withdrew because of a famine the previous year in Italy, reducing its worth. However, his death shortly afterwards was seen by many as proof of papal authority, and as a miracle of God smiting His enemies, leading to the role of Pope as spiritual authorty and protector in the medieval period. It may be that this meeting was a cornerstone of the authority of the Church for the next 1000 years.

**caesar44** · 07-03-2005, 19:05

Originally Posted by KingOfTheIsles

You seem to be confusing political strength with military strength, Caesar. Certainly, Atilla's horde was held together under his personality, and so lacked the internal strength to avoid splintering on his death, with no enshrined law of succession, and little in the way of administration or national/racial unity, it stood no chance.

The strength of steppe nomads came from the fact that virtually every male was a warrior, trained in the use of a bow and of tending to his horse. It wasn't that the Romans were bad warriors (even in the Empire's death throes, they still won victories), but that often couldn't bring the more mobile Huns to battle, and they were able to ravage the countryside.

Funnily enough, the title of this thread reminded me of another piece of history where maybe the Huns were a gift from God, and the founder of ecclesiastical supremacy in the middle-ages. After his defeat at Châlons, Atilla ravaged Lombardy in 452 and settled on the Mincio. Supposedly, an embassy lead by Pope Leo awed him into submission, and he did not march on the rest of Italy. In reality, it is unlikely the pagan Hun would care for the church, and he withdrew because of a famine the previous year in Italy, reducing its worth. However, his death shortly afterwards was seen by many as proof of papal authority, and as a miracle of God smiting His enemies, leading to the role of Pope as spiritual authorty and protector in the medieval period. It may be that this meeting was a cornerstone of the authority of the Church for the next 1000 years.

Again , the romans/latins were fighting for centuries against "barbaric" nations - the Volscians , the Aequians , the Sabines , the Samnites , the Celtics , the Germanians , the Britons , the Belgae , the Celtibreians , the Tracks , the Sarmatians and on and on , they took them by sheer strength although outnumbered

About Pope Leo - Agreed , he was lucky

**Steppe Merc** · 07-03-2005, 19:56

Sarmatians were the only nomads that the Romans ever defeated, as Atilla's Huns probably weren't true nomads at that point. And they were never conquered. Sassanids and Parthians are close to nomads, but they cared to much for the land that the Romans were taking. They also never were conquered by Romans, despite the Romans best attempts.
Civilized armies couldn't fight against steppe warriors on their own ground, because they wouldn't be able to find them. And this was Atilla's undoing: he fought the Romans, trying to use western tactics.
And it was hardly sheer strength. The best thing that Romans were good at were politics: playing one side of a civil war off of another. Their conquests took hundreds of years, and most was done with words rather than strength of arms.